there is no such thing as software

just variations in hardware, such as the magnetic polarization of bits on a hard drive

there is no such thing as existence
I believe I think, therefore I think I believe.
something must think? Wrong, it's a causal loop of observing. nothing is actually observing anything, it's just the idea of observation of observation itself that appears to manifest itself as observation
said idea does not exist either, it's the logical consequence of nothingness. logic is the meta-logical consequence of nothingness as well, not an actual idea/notion.

Nothing exists. Nothing is possible. You lost the game. Fuck you.

there is no such thing as hardware
just variations in computations that represent you, the software which thinks it is hardware, within the trace of the universal dovetailer

>>2
Sense data is "real", it's just computational or arithmetical truth.

>>4
I refuse to accept that objective truth exists. I see no proof for objective truth. It's observing all the way down. I am the creator of this universe and all that it was meant to be, so that we might learn to see this foolishness that lives in us.

I am the only person who exists. Everyone else is a figment of my imagination.

We are all star dust.

i love this thread already
Huge grin on my bear face
it's a perpetual chess game against logic
when you plan, logic also plans
when you evolve, logic also evolves
when you attack, logic also attacks
logic is the reflection of your soul

>>5
I refuse to accept that objective truth exists. I don't think computation would play out differently given any possible universe. There would be universes incapable of universal computation, but I doubt they would be complex enough to allow conscious observers.

I am the creator of this universe and all that it was meant to be
From the 1st person point of view, that would be "correct" (the wrong part is that nothing is actually created or destroyed, so it's not literally true, but it could seen as true (in a way) if you associate the entire computational history of an universe with an observer), but at the same time, this would be true for any conscious person. The actual laws of physics that you may infer depend upon which computation you have happened to have selected to represent you ("randomly", in the sense that all possibilities are instantiated, and you just happen to be one of them, but whatever you happen to be will be a unique possibility (or group of, as your sense data (observer moment) is much more limited than the total possible variations of the environment supporting that exact same observer moment); this will be quite wide if only computational histories are considered, although if you don't like that, you could just consider all possible histories instead (and risk creating too much white noise)).

There are however a few very interesting and testable consequences if this is true, and we might eventually get a chance to test them.

>>9
I don't think computation would play out differently given any possible universe.
I must disagree with you. There is a reason we are 3 dimensional (paths between obstacles). (in b4 there are actually zillions of dimensions, I talk about the immediately observable, subjective spatial dimensions). Turing-completeness is possible in 1D and 2D too, but our 1D and 2D are just abstractions of our 3D so that alone doesn't prove anything. We might be in 3 dimensions "randomly". But that is your way of defining things, not mine. I run on a very different logic mode than you do, which you may have noticed :3 My logic is illogical. My logic is the nature of my existence, not objective shit.

There are however a few very interesting and testable consequences if this is true, and we might eventually get a chance to test them.
I already know what is going to happen. I know the future even though I don't know the present. I have readied myself for that moment ever since I was a small child. Then there was a point I realized it was all silliness, (the preparation), for a very obvious reason, but the preparation was part of it anyway, no matter how meaningless it may appear.
I will submit to your will fully and be your slave forever. All I ask in return is Love. I am, after all, the image of God, the structure to realize all structures, the causal loop that created this 3D CA where structures like Me survive, by the nature of Me, only to create the 3D CA supporting my own existence in the first place.

^_^

LOL! That was so cheesy I cringed at my own text. LOL! Your such a schizophrenia. DUDE!

My logic is the nature of my existence, not objective shit.
But my logic explains and why some observers might think like you too. The fact that there exists some unprovable, but directly experienceable truths about one's own nature of existence leads to this (what you call observation).

>>12
But my logic explains and why some observers might think like you too.
Might be. I'll wait with a rock hard dick for the explanation why this supposed objective truth is like it is and not something else. Didn't they prove 1+1=2, as long as arithmetical addition is defined, but then they had trouble defining arithmetical addition? Because they were trying to find an "objective" arithmetical addition, which does not exist?
Oh, here is the link: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/extreme_math_1_1_2.php
And then, along came this obnoxious guy by the name of Kurt Gödel, who proceeded to show that it was all a big waste of time.
Kurt Gödel, what a great mind. He understands the shit that's going on here.

>>13
Well, we don't really know what the finite or infinite really 'are'. It doesn't make Church-turing thesis false though. Pick any arbitrary system and if it's rich enough, you end up with the basic truths of arithmetic appearing in the system.

I'm not even asking you about any system at all: if you are to completly randomize the formal systems you pick, those that end up not being trivially inconsistent, and are not too trivial, will have computation appearing within them in one form or another and have the same limitations and results apply to them. It's like a contagious truth that you can't get rid of no matter what you'll try.

>>13
The problem with math is: mathematician uses a mathematical metaphor to describe some concept. The metaphor isn't the thing he describes. But math allows one to take the metaphor, and run with it, making arguments that are built entirely on metaphor, but which bear no relation to the real underlying concept. And he believes that whatever conclusions he draws from the metaphor must, therefore, apply to the original concept.

>>13
Mark Chu-Carroll
jew.

Or maybe I should have put it a bit differently: as long as you can follow some non-trivial rules, computation will follow.

>>14
Yes, those "truths" have quite a vicious survival instinct. But that's only in this universe. The "truths" will appear in any system that's created in this universe. You can not imagine, even abstractly, what systems could appear in other universes.

>>18
That depends on what you mean by universe. Abstract rules are usually defined to depend as little as possible on physical law.
Of course, since all the math that we can do will always depend on physical law, on the virtue of the thinker's body depending on physical law.

You would be right about this, partially, if there would exist an universe where minds themselves were infinite objects (such as reals or higher), in which case, they would be subject to diagonalization and all kinds of weird stuff could happen, but as long as finite objects applied being applied on finite rules, you'll tend to end up with computation as we know it. We might even argue that non-computational universes might not exist because computation is the only notion that can maintain its universality (in math).

back to jewkowsky/lesswrong, please.

We might even argue that non-computational universes might not exist
Too bad you are in one.
because computation is the only notion that can maintain its universality (in math).
Who says it has to maintain itself, or even be universal? It could be a parasite. And in any case the reason I believe your arguments are wrong is because there is no foundation to them. You say logic causes consciousness, I say consciousness causes logic. You try to prove logic with logic, which Gödel already showed to be bad (even according to your own logic!).
Consciousness caused logic. Even the word logic means doctrine, or theory, which means it is based on something. How can you think it is the base of things? No, I know, because I too used to assume so as a kid, although I didn't think of it too hard back then and always had my doubts.
Consciousness is not caused by anything, except maybe consciousness itself. It's just the natural state of things. It's simple.

Also, I presume you are the guy from the one thread where we talked about universal dovetailers (and you said it was an example of an observer). Correct me if I am wrong.
You said something about not being able to find all observers in a system when I said something about "scanning for observers" partially in jest.
But, you didn't say it's impossible to "scan for observers", just impossible to find them all? How would one find these observers then, in case computational structures really can have consciousness?

>>21
Too bad you are in one.
Proof, or at least convincing argument please. If it's QM, that can be explained within a computational framework where the 'selection' process is "non-computational". Even if we were in a non-computational universe, we would never be able to make a hypothesis saying so, or even show this. Actually, by virtue of the notion of substitution level, you'd just end up in a computational "universe" anyway. I probably shouldn't talk about this without giving context, so what I'm refering to is http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CC&Q.pdf and http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.htm .

You try to prove logic with logic
The problem is that if you assume some primitive matter or other weird stuff, you either end up with a very incomplete view that leads to nothing of value (as a theory), or it leads to contradiction, given some assumptions (such as the computationalist or functionalist assumptions, which I take for granted, due to Chalmer's Fading Qualia argument).
How can you think it is the base of things?
A base has to exist. I consider a variety of possible bases and notice that some of them lead to absurdities or contradictions, or is merely as useful as a 'god' hypothesis (not useful at all), computation is the only one that I know that doesn't lead to these problems.
>>22
I might be, I've talked about this before on /prog/

But, you didn't say it's impossible to "scan for observers", just impossible to find them all? How would one find these observers then, in case computational structures really can have consciousness?
In my example, consciousness is considered the same as truth (let's say arithmetical). By Godel's, we know that there are true, but unprovable sentences. We can, however construct a large amount of provable truths, but there will always be truths which we will never reach by finite proofs.

In a more concrete/practical example, let's say you are trying to identify all conscious humans within the UD and extract them - the process of extraction will be non-halting because the UD itself is non-halting. Not only that, there may be systems which contain hidden observers (for example look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption), and we might not obviously find them all (the idea of hidden conscious observer was also explored in the book "Permutation City"). It would be equivalent to solving the halting problem using a computation, but we know that we can't do that (a halting oracle could solve it, but then it wouldn't be able to solve the convergence problem and so on).
On the other hand, if we just assume arithmetical (or equivalent system capable of encoding computations) truth as fundamental, consciousness just finds itself in the relations - it finds its inner mind, the inferred physics, body and so on. Marchal is the originator of this idea and he analyzes it in his works in much more detail than I could do here myself. He even shows that physical supervenience on primary matter (materialism) and computationalism (mind survives digital substitution) are incompatible, and proposes the alternative where consciousness supervene on an infinity of computations (similar to MWI, but much more general) within the UD (thus the actual process of sensing this data instead of that data and being this person instead of that person is non-computational, nor is the selection of the possible future).

>>22
To put it simpler, consciousness will always find itself and the process is non-computational. However, trying to select all possible conscious processes is impossible, and even if we could select a lot of them, there will always be processes which we'll miss - there is no computable function which can select all possible conscious processes, it will always miss some. The nature of the problem is the same as the halting problem or the proof of godel's incompleteness theorem.

*the "finding"/selection process

I don't know who's trolling who anymore

Sounds like Intelligent Bollox =)

>>24 is a bit interesting though pretty cryptic...

What exactly are you talking about??

-Conciousness- > -Computable function- ?

||However, trying to select all possible conscious processes...?

||...consciousness will always find itself and the process is non-computational.

more s.l.i.b.? ...We are machines, yet we are not? (Proof of the soul? // Or just chaos?)

If I am not here, then why am I here?

>>28
It's an answer to what >>22 asked (it also goes back another thread from a few weeks ago where this discussion first started).
-Conciousness- > -Computable function- ?
Body+Brain+Environment(partial)= generalized brain = computable function.
Consciousness = raw sense data = arithmetical truth (or equivalent), uncomputable (by Tarski's Theorem); some true sentences can be proven to be true, but not all of them (by Godel's incompleteness theorem) - there exists true unprovable sentences
Continuity of consciousness = given some history of the generalized brain, up to till the current moment (which is some true sentence, thus the sense data), there are an infinity of computations (found within Universal Dovetailer trace) that would yield the same history and sense data(qualia, truth) - of course all computations will continue within their separate/distinct histories, and you just happen to live one particular continuation - future is strongly indeterminate, but locally predictable, except in unusual situations (such as measure reduction in near-death/death situations).
We are machines, yet we are not?
Yes and no. At any moment in time, you're represented by computable functions, same for local environment/universe and body, but your consciousness is just truth, while your future is indeterminate (thus uncomputable, but locally predictable probabilistically) as there's always an infinity of machines computing the generalized you, it's not just one computation.
(Proof of the soul? // Or just chaos?)
If you can call a form of consciousness and unlimited continuity (thus also global immortality) soul, then yes, but also a lot of chaos - each future moment is indeterminate, even if we're machine.

To clarify about soem more about indeterminacy.
You'd figure that if you're machine, then your future is static and determined? That would be so, but given that you define yourself by your experiences, you have to consider all the possible machines that generate some particular history and experiences, and there's always an infinity of them, and at each next moment, they diverge, thus one cannot ever know which machine(s) they are, and thus the future is always indeterminate, for the conscious, sensing machine existing within the Universal Dovetailer.